I think the only call that was questionable that I think she got a pass on was the 2A-3T. That could have been called < b/c it was more than a quarter short, but just under 1/2 a turn short.

Other than that, the rest of the jumps were borderline. Everything seemed to be landed right at the quarter turn mark and could have gone either way. The caller was feeling generous that day and gave her the benefit of the doubt, which I think she deserved considering how well she skated. I thought she was wonderful.

I absolutely agree. Most of those jumps were borderline in which case there is a benefit of the doubt. However, I would call the lutz as "<", 3T likewise. As far as 2Lo's are concerned the first one was borderline, the third was fine and the third one shoud be called "<".

Since UR/flutz scrutiny came into effect, people are going absolutely crazy about them. Like the smear campaigns and over-analytical criticism is astounding. It's like, relax people... just enjoy the skating.

I have realized how these calls have affected by enjoyment of performances. I find myself watching old programs and sometimes couldn't help checking the rotations on jumps. Nevertheless, I never understood the over-analyzing of performances from skaters one doesn't particularly enjoy. I think time is better spent watching performances of skaters you actually like.

According to this. http://www.isuresults.com/results/gpusa2013/
Amano has been relegated/punished/demoted to ASSISTANT technical specialist (not even a tc), 3rd in ranking on the technical panel. 2nd to Technical Specialist, 3rd to designated Technical caller at Skate America. I wonder why

Does that mean the designated TC can overturn his and TS's calls? Love to see the call sheet. Also just how and who decide the technical panel for that competition? Was it done by lucky draw, or by invitation by the hosting federation, or assigned by ISU independently? Do hosting nation have approval rights?

Awww... why play the poor victim mode now? Poor poor you. Who has been bullying you? I don't take that term lightly. Do tell. I want names, evidence. That poster should be banned.

However if you falsely accuse others and exaggerate just to gain sympathies, then you deserve none. You are hardly doing the said skater any favours when you brand everyone who question the judging as haters.

Victim? Poor me? yeah to that one because I don't have a lot money. But victim You are taking it too far Now. Did I ask you to pay my rent, buy my groceries. No

You have been rude and condescending to me many times in this board, so yes I am calling you out TODAY. You do not intimidate me with your long posts about Mao, pretending to be an expert on everything. Please. Chill. By the way, I have a feeling Mao does not need your sympathy either.

I absolutely agree. Most of those jumps were borderline in which case there is a benefit of the doubt. However, I would call the lutz as "<", 3T likewise. As far as 2Lo's are concerned the first one was borderline, the third was fine and the third one shoud be called "<".

Honestly, the first 3F-2Lo looked fine. Not pristine but easily a ratified combo. It's the -3T, Flutz and 3 jump combo that were questionable. Odd that one would single out the first combo but not the 3 jump combo when the latter actually was doubtful.

Victim? Poor me? yeah to that one because I don't have a lot money. But victim You are taking it too far Now. Did I ask you to pay my rent, buy my groceries. No

You have been rude and condescending to me many times in this board, so yes I am calling you out TODAY. You do not intimidate me with your long posts about Mao, pretending to be an expert on everything. Please. Chill. By the way, I have a feeling Mao does not need your sympathy either.

Oh I can assure you I am perfectly relaxed but find all these attention seeking a bit confusing. Given you have sensationally claimed being bullied, how is it not crying victim? Where's the evidence of the bully? I also don't get these passive aggressive posts. Your skaters won sensationally, I agreed with her winning, so why being such a sour puss? And oh please... do show me where I have been rude and intimidating to you. I have always thought I am rather cuddly and lovable, but clearly I need to work on that image a bit more

As I recall, I tends to focus on the issues, you and a few others however seems to take these disagreements far too personally. And since when have I ever claimed to be an expert on anything?! (I am not for the record, this is just a hobby.) Especially when I have CarneAsada harping on literally every post of mine lately to insist keep me grounded Redbull style. (Don't you get tired... seriously?! I am on UK time, are you? ) I am just a NOBODY who enjoy watching and visit competitions now and then, also the stuff I said is nothing new or haven't been repeated by others elsewhere, so there's no need to take it too personally :D

And CarneAsada, cut the passive aggressive attitude. I was initially amused by your dry wit and strong retort, but now you are in too much she-hulk angry mood all the time for anyone's own good. This is just a skating board dear... not war - no mudsling is needed. People will make their own mind up anyway, it doesn't matter what ever people say at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by Kirk

Demoted? I thought tech panels were assigned without pulling any ranks, I.e., one can be a tech specialist at one event, and be a tech assistant at the other without any prejudices.

I thought any panel with specialist and controller titles should have ranks and are not equal, otherwise how are expertise level be determined? Surely by experience? Otherwise they might as well just share the same title as technical judge just with different job descriptions? Is that what they are? Who assigned the panels? How can it be without prejudices (unless by draw?) since how strict the caller are being are known?

I admit, weakness of COP system is an interesting topic to me as an example of information system failure. Failure happens when there are inconsistency between different competitions, trend of over score at one but not the other, over score for one skater but not another, and technical panel is a key aspect of the scoring controller since they control the levels. It is said by others before, the difference between corruption in 6.0 era vs COP is that you just need to bribe 2 judges (doesn't matter which nationality since it is anonymous anyway which protect the judge) and the technical panel. Where as in the 6.0 it is easier to identify which judge has been marking out of the norm and their identity, or in some cases block judging. Different system, different vulnerabilities, all depends on the management (secrecy, complexity, anonymity, competency, complacency), all fascinating.

Oh I can assure you I am perfectly relaxed but find all these attention seeking a bit confusing. Given you have sensationally claimed being bullied, how is it not crying victim? Where's the evidence of the bully? I also don't get these passive aggressive posts. Your skaters won sensationally, I agreed with her winning, so why being such a sour puss? And oh please... do show me where I have been rude and intimidating to you. I have always thought I am rather cuddly and lovable, but clearly I need to work on that image a bit more
I thought any panel with specialist and controller titles should have ranks and are not equal, otherwise how are expertise level be determined? Surely by experience? Otherwise they might as well just share the same title as technical judge just with different job descriptions? Is that what they are? Who assigned the panels? How can it be without prejudices (unless by draw?) since how strict the caller are being are known?

I believe it is by draw. Often times, on one panel a person will be TC on the next ATS or TS and on the next ATS. Why wouldn't you (as the ISU) assign a well-known, trained TC or TS to fill the ATS slot if they are available? The TC doesn't "rule" the panel, the TS or ATS can call review if they believe something is short rotation just as easily and with as much "power" as the TC. The TC typically decides on who's got which responsibilities for step sequences for bullets and thingas of that nature. Also, if an element is reviewed, the panel has to be in agreement or at least majority (so, 2/3) for it to be so (if 2 out of 3 say the jump is UR, then it gets marked as < but if 2 of 3 give benefit of the doubt because it's at the edge, then it gets marked as clean and the GOE will take care of it). The TC cannot overrule majority if the other 2 disagree. NOW, what may happen is that Amano as TC or ATS may call a lot of things for review because he has an eagle eye, more than other technical panel members, and in slow motion, those items are UR or DG.

Oh I can assure you I am perfectly relaxed but find all these attention seeking a bit confusing. Given you have sensationally claimed being bullied, how is it not crying victim? Where's the evidence of the bully? I also don't get these passive aggressive posts. Your skaters won sensationally, I agreed with her winning, so why being such a sour puss? And oh please... do show me where I have been rude and intimidating to you. I have always thought I am rather cuddly and lovable, but clearly I need to work on that image a bit more

As I recall, I tends to focus on the issues, you and a few others however seems to take these disagreements far too personally. And since when have I ever claimed to be an expert on anything?! (I am not for the record, this is just a hobby.) Especially when I have CarneAsada harping on literally every post of mine lately to insist keep me grounded Redbull style. (Don't you get tired... seriously?! I am on UK time, are you? ) I am just a NOBODY who enjoy watching and visit competitions now and then, also the stuff I said is nothing new or haven't been repeated by others elsewhere, so there's no need to take it too personally :D

And CarneAsada, cut the passive aggressive attitude. I was initially amused by your dry wit and strong retort, but now you are in too much she-hulk angry mood all the time for anyone's own good. This is just a skating board dear... not war - no mudsling is needed. People will make their own mind up anyway, it doesn't matter what ever people say at the end of the day.

I thought any panel with specialist and controller titles should have ranks and are not equal, otherwise how are expertise level be determined? Surely by experience? Otherwise they might as well just share the same title as technical judge just with different job descriptions? Is that what they are? Who assigned the panels? How can it be without prejudices (unless by draw?) since how strict the caller are being are known?

I admit, weakness of COP system is an interesting topic to me as an example of information system failure. Failure happens when there are inconsistency between different competitions, trend of over score at one but not the other, over score for one skater but not another, and technical panel is a key aspect of the scoring controller since they control the levels. It is said by others before, the difference between corruption in 6.0 era vs COP is that you just need to bribe 2 judges (doesn't matter which nationality since it is anonymous anyway which protect the judge) and the technical panel. Where as in the 6.0 it is easier to identify which judge has been marking out of the norm and their identity, or in some cases block judging. Different system, different vulnerabilities, all depends on the management (secrecy, complexity, anonymity, competency, complacency), all fascinating.

[B]It is fairly apparent now why you started this thread. More like you have a problem with 'Philip' to begin with for years and have resort to take this opportunities to nit pick over an impulsive tweet. Wow, to have the audacity to act morally superior then accuse him of being a Yunabot is kinda pathetic and ludicrous.

Sour grapes makes very poor whine. A deceptive one risks turning toxic. Take antidote while you can. But I will say it again I am not intimidated by youFrom Philip Hersh thread, you tend to get very personal with your insults. In this post, you called my toxic, sent to take meds.

[B]It is fairly apparent now why you started this thread. More like you have a problem with 'Philip' to begin with for years and have resort to take this opportunities to nit pick over an impulsive tweet. Wow, to have the audacity to act morally superior then accuse him of being a Yunabot is kinda pathetic and ludicrous.

Sour grapes makes very poor whine. A deceptive one risks turning toxic. Take antidote while you can. But I will say it again I am not intimidated by youFrom Philip Hersh thread, you tend to get very personal with your insults. In this post, you called my toxic, sent to take meds.

Oh come on.. i offered you antidote I tried to save you You just called Phil Hersh a Yunabot?! You don't find it ridiculous or amusing at all? Even a little? Okay okay let bygones be bygones. Here's a song for you (or for us.)

It will soon be over my dear, good luck to all skaters, I have no gripes to pick with you.

Originally Posted by mskater93

I believe it is by draw. Often times, on one panel a person will be TC on the next ATS or TS and on the next ATS. Why wouldn't you (as the ISU) assign a well-known, trained TC or TS to fill the ATS slot if they are available? The TC doesn't "rule" the panel, the TS or ATS can call review if they believe something is short rotation just as easily and with as much "power" as the TC. The TC typically decides on who's got which responsibilities for step sequences for bullets and thingas of that nature. Also, if an element is reviewed, the panel has to be in agreement or at least majority (so, 2/3) for it to be so (if 2 out of 3 say the jump is UR, then it gets marked as < but if 2 of 3 give benefit of the doubt because it's at the edge, then it gets marked as clean and the GOE will take care of it). The TC cannot overrule majority if the other 2 disagree. NOW, what may happen is that Amano as TC or ATS may call a lot of things for review because he has an eagle eye, more than other technical panel members, and in slow motion, those items are UR or DG.

Thanks for this. It is assuring that it is done by draw. It would be nice if they release the calling records (include overruled ones) to public as well for future references for full disclosure and transparency. These boarderlined calls are controversial as tennis judging, except obviously for figure skating, point wise it is much more critical.

Oh come on.. i offered you antidote I tried to save you You just called Phil Hersh a Yunabot?! You don't find it ridiculous or amusing at all? Even a little? Okay okay let bygones be bygones. Here's a song for you (or for us.)

It will soon be over my dear, good luck to all skaters, I have no gripes to pick with you.

Thanks for this. It is assuring that it is done by draw. It would be nice if they release the calling records (include overruled ones) to public as well for future references for full disclosure and transparency. These boarderlined calls are controversial as tennis judging, except obviously for figure skating, point wise it is much more critical.

Thank You for trying to save me, but I already got a Savior. In any case, I dont need you to tell me what is ridicoulous or amusing. I dont like your condesending posts or comments. I thing going foward ignoring eachother's post will be better. Peace

Thanks for this. It is assuring that it is done by draw. It would be nice if they release the calling records (include overruled ones) to public as well for future references for full disclosure and transparency. These boarderlined calls are controversial as tennis judging, except obviously for figure skating, point wise it is much more critical.

IIRC there was a recording released of the tech panel's conversation during Sasha Cohen's 2010 Nationals SP. They said her Lutz edge "looked fine." And don't worry about my growing tired, darling, for I never grow tired of correcting your posts; no one else provides such juicy material. Your posts are like an elaborate stew of bitter melon, lemons, and tripe: sour, crunchy, and overwhelmingly bitter. The thing I most enjoy about you is that you don't allow yourself to be limited by mundane things such as reality or facts. You really should find new material for your next conspiracy theory, though; the Shin Amani demotion tack is really not as compelling.

IIRC there was a recording released of the tech panel's conversation during Sasha Cohen's 2010 Nationals SP. They said her Lutz edge "looked fine." And don't worry about my growing tired, darling, for I never grow tired of correcting your posts; no one else provides such juicy material. Your posts are like an elaborate stew of bitter melon, lemons, and tripe: sour, crunchy, and overwhelmingly bitter. The thing I most enjoy about you is that you don't allow yourself to be limited by mundane things such as reality or facts. You really should find new material for your next conspiracy theory, though; the Shin Amani demotion tack is really not as compelling.

Yes thank you Dr. Bitterness. Your elaborate expertise in this field continues to be both provocative, fascinating and titillating. I'd usually avoid such stalkish behaviour but the mere fact you persist to enrol me as as a test subject for your patented ghastly formula in order induce me into an coma is highly unethical.

Your insinuation that I prescribes to some conspiracy, but I am merely point out discrepancies of his strict calls are not applicable to this competition and the possible reasons why. Are one not allowed to speculate anymore where there are discrepancy between competitions?

Perhaps it'd be wise to go back to your wonderful school of maodication to learn proportionate response and get off your high horse before commit drastic malpractice for your own sanity.

Do you think it's just possibly possible that Mao's jumps have improved just enough that they deserve the benefit of the doubt? I am a skater and I can tell you that just a little bit of improvement can make the difference between << and < and between < and no call. From what I saw, several of her jumps are borderline but under scrutiny are good enough for a no call versus last year, many were not good enough for a no call and deserved the < she was getting.

There's a lot of jargon that's used by the tech panel that wouldn't be worth releasing.

Do you think it's just possibly possible that Mao's jumps have improved just enough that they deserve the benefit of the doubt? I am a skater and I can tell you that just a little bit of improvement can make the difference between << and < and between < and no call. From what I saw, several of her jumps are borderline but under scrutiny are good enough for a no call versus last year, many were not good enough for a no call and deserved the < she was getting.

That's great to hear from a skater!! And I am hopeful that Mao's landing is going to improve even more, and I have a hunch that they will. The reason why I say this is because Kanako last season used to be an even worse under-rotater than Mao, and she has made a dramatic improvement this season. Mao and Kanako train at the same place, and I have a feeling whoever is coaching/training Kanako figured out a way to fix Kanako's under-rotation via physical training, and so if Kanako's could be improved so quickly, then so can Mao's.

Another skater that fixed her under-rotation problem is Ashley, who is now able to land her 3-3s. Ashley also is noticeably stronger-looking this season, particularly the legs.

And Mao also is beginning to look bigger, and I think she can afford to put on more muscle.

That's great to hear from a skater!! And I am hopeful that Mao's landing is going to improve even more, and I have a hunch that they will.

I'm not seeing how Mao has improved her jumps in any way. Her jumps looked more rotated in previous competitions and looked worse at NHK so to speak of an improvement is slighly erroneous in my opinion.

Originally Posted by hurrah

The reason why I say this is because Kanako last season used to be an even worse under-rotater than Mao, and she has made a dramatic improvement this season. Mao and Kanako train at the same place, and I have a feeling whoever is coaching/training Kanako figured out a way to fix Kanako's under-rotation via physical training, and so if Kanako's could be improved so quickly, then so can Mao's.

I'm not seeing how Kanako has fixed her jumps, either. She got several "<s" at CoC in both SP and LP.
Underrotation of jumps is something which cannot improve quickly 99% of the time.

Originally Posted by hurrah

Another skater that fixed her under-rotation problem is Ashley, who is now able to land her 3-3s. Ashley also is noticeably stronger-looking this season, particularly the legs.

Ashley never had a big problem with underrotation, except maybe for triple jumps done as 2nd part of combinations. Her other jumps are fully rotated most of the time and are not comparable with Mao's or Kanako's jumps.